With out a reason to do it earlier I pulled the body off the SVO last night to start cleaning her up. I knew the tire was blow off the rim and had picked out of the nose of the car that evening. What I didn't know was that it made that trip from the trunk area.
Note the bent right side mount? Made the trip up and back nearly in the traps when the "BANG" came. What I wouldn't know till last night is that it hit hard enough to kick a hole in the trunk lid. The wing covers that area from above so went unnoticed.
LOL, Talk about a sitting duck!! Right!
1.) Body pinning. The need to float. 2.) Chassis stiffness tied to point #1. 3.) Hub sizes and rubber hardness for hard chassis. 4.) The need for "special rubber". 5.) Glue up.
It confirmed a few as well.
1.) Power to weight. 2.) Power matched to the set up. 3.) Sidewinder is more efficient than Inline.
A = F/M. Newtons second law solving for acceleration shows the for any given Force the smaller the Mass the higher the acceleration rate. Covered a bunch of times here before.
No matter what mathematical disciplines that sprung from Newtons three laws of motion, they as a foundation, put men on the moon, docked space stations and collide atoms in accelerators.
Newton however did not create nor invent these laws. He observed them and posed them in formulas that others could/would/should understand. God did the creating. It's that simple.
When you look at a slot car this second laws limits of application get pointed out pretty quickly. Give it enough power or a "weak" enough mass and it does not accelerate. It's disintegrates. Does that mean there is a flaw in God's law? Never. Means the expression of that law did not cast a wide enough net or that its definition as to boundaries was not made clear enough. By fault or by design it matters not. My guess is that Newton wrote for exceptionally intelligent men who practice rational though.
"Weak" is the word that needs some explanation.
Structural integrity. The shapes, sizes and strengths of materials required to withstand the forces applied.
There is a minimum mass (weight) that can be manipulated with geometry and material properties that will successfully withstand the force required for any given rate of acceleration well enough to accomplish the acceleration rates goal.
If there is a secret to "More with Less" it is in this one simple idea. Less power requires less mechanical integrity to accomplish the same rate of acceleration and can do so because the F and M stay in the same ratio or proportion even though F continues to decline. This is not so useful in classes that have minimum weights but can be exploited in those without.
This is why points one and two of the second set can not be divorced. Can that be summed up? Sure!
Make it as light as possible that is consistent with the required structural integrity.